Residents accuse Stark County commissioners of unlawful overtaxing; commission defends gradual levy reductions

Residents pressed Stark County commissioners on the findings of a recent audit during a public comment period, accusing elected officials of collecting more in property taxes than state law allows and urging remedies ranging from published mill-reduction plans to a forensic audit.

"You all willingly, knowingly, repeatedly, and illegally took money from the people you're supposed to be serving," said Chris Geetson, a public commenter, who also asked whether residents should petition the Bureau of Criminal Investigation for a forensic audit and whether individual commissioners could be held civilly liable.

Why it matters: The county's 2023 audit found surplus funds above the threshold set in state law (often discussed under the North Dakota Century Code). Several residents said the county has been "overtaxed" for years and demanded transparency on how the commission plans to reduce the mill levy to comply with statute.

Multiple speakers asked for a public, published mill-reduction plan. "If you do have that mill reduction plan in place, when was it started? How much is being reduced each year to bring to follow NDCC?" asked Matthew Rothstein, citing newspaper coverage and requesting a location where the public could read any plan the commission had adopted.

The commission's principal speaker, identified in the record as the meeting chair, said the audit finding dates back to audits covering 2019 and 2020 and described steps the board has taken since 2021. The chair said the commission reduced the general fund levy from $6,700,000 in 2021 to $5,700,000 that year and later to about $5,500,000, and affirmed the board'level intent to keep lowering levies while preserving flexibility to meet county needs.

"We are reducing, our costs are going up. We're, we are slowly reducing the mill levy to your question," the chair said, arguing the board preferred a multi-year approach so large capital projects and essential services would not be jeopardized by an immediate zeroing of the levy.

The chair also described revenue streams beyond property tax'including gross production tax and highway distribution'and warned that cutting levies to zero in boom years could make taxes higher in later years. He cited large planned projects, including an "Eastern Bypass" and a request from the airport authority for a multiyear contribution toward a new terminal, as reasons the board has sought to balance reserves and capital needs.

Residents pushed back that the issue was not spending priorities but whether the tax collections themselves complied with state statute. "The problem is the way it's being collected," Geetson said in a follow-up; "Is something gonna be done to follow state statute with the budget from here on out?"

Other commenters raised related concerns: one called for a refund or immediate reduction; Joshua Layman questioned overtime and pay requests by the sheriff's department against the county's revenue totals; Cassidy Thibodeaux described paying about $17,000 in property taxes since 2017 and urged a more accessible meeting schedule so residents can participate.

County responses in the meeting record described prior conversations with the state auditor (identified in the record as Galvin) about restricted funds and options for capital improvement funds; the chair reported the state auditor had explained that certain restricted capital funds are not available for emergency expenditures and described a prior conversation about the mechanics of reserving money for multiyear capital projects.

Action taken: The only formal vote recorded in the transcript was a procedural motion to adjourn. Commissioner White moved to adjourn; Commissioner Claire's seconded; the chair called for "aye" and declared the motion carried.

What's next: Commenters asked the commission to publish any mill-reduction plan and to clarify how it will comply with state statute going forward. The transcript ends after adjournment procedures and does not record any subsequent formal commitments or a published plan in the meeting record.